The impleadment of a party in a suit is proper if the party has a semblance of title or interest in the property in dispute.

1. - By the impugned order dated 10.11.2010, the learned trial Court of Additional Civil judge'(Jr. Division) and judicial Magistrate, First Class No. 2, Udaipur City (South), Udaipur in Civil Suit No. 258/2010, Omkar Lal v. Liquidator, Bhupal Co-operative Society Ltd. , for injunction against the Bhupal Co-operative Society Ltd., by the original plaintiff, Omkar Lal, impleaded the Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur (for short hereinafter referred to as 'UIT, Udaipur') as party-defendant by allowing its application under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C.

2. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners (legal representatives of deceased Omkar Lal, original plaintiff) have approached to this Court by way of present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. Mr. R.K. Thanvi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Narendra Thanvi, learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors. reported in (1992) 2 SCC 524 , submitted that the plaintiffs have not claimed any relief against the UIT, Udaipur and more over, this application was filed in the suit filed in the year 1995 at the fag end of the trial in the year 2010; and therefore, the impugned order would only delay the trial further and merely on the basis of an alleged MoU (Memorandum of Understanding) executed by and between the defendant-Bhupal Co-operative Society Ltd. and the UIT, Udaipur, in which only right to contest the pending litigation on behalf of Bhupal Co-operative Society Ltd. was given to UIT, the UIT, Udaipur cannot be impleaded as a party-defendant, as it is neither necessary nor a proper party in the said suit for injunction filed by the plaintiffs. In which no relief was claimed by the plaintiffs against the UIT, Udaipur and the principles of dominus litis, the learned trial Court has erred in impleading the UIT, Udaipur as the defendant in the said suit. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order deserves to be set aside by this Court in the present writ petition.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Deelip Kawadia, learned counsel, for the UIT, Udaipur, relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumtibai & Ors. v. Paras Finance Co. Rg. Partnership Firm Beawer (Raj.) Thro Mankanwar & Ors. reported in 2007 DNJ (SC) 1019 and submitted that the land in question belonging to Bhupal Co-operative Society Ltd., which had been transferred to the UIT, Udaipur under a MoU executed between these parties, the right to contest the pending litigation was given to UIT, Udaipur; and in view of this semblance of interest in the suit property, the whole land including the land for which plaintiff sought injunction, the UIT, Udaipur is very much entitled to contest the injunction suit filed by the plaintiffs and therefore, impleadment of UIT, Udaipur in the present writ petition cannot be faulted and in view of narrow jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the impugned interlocutory order does not require any interference by this Court.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the impugned order and the judgments cited by the parties.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumtibai (supra) in para 9 has held as under:

"9. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on a three-judge Bench decision of this Court in Kasturi v. yamperumal & Ors., (2005) 6 SCC 733 . He has submitted that in this case it has been held that in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of property a stranger or a third party to the contract cannot be added as defendant in the suit. In our opinion, the aforesaid decision is clearly distinguishable. In our opinion, the aforesaid decision can only be understood to mean that a third party cannot be impleaded in a suit for specific performance if he has no semblance of title in the property in dispute. Obviously, a busybody or